The Hon'ble Supreme Court in'NCV Aishuarya v. A.S.Saraoana Karthik Shal held as follows

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER: w .tt ffi. HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.l09 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.25 of 2024 fuom the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Macherial, filed by the respondent-husband, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Godhavarikhani

2. Heard I\,[s. D. Samhitha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was soiemnized on 26.05.2027 at Amruthraj Kalyana Mandapam, Addaguntapalli, Godhavarikhani, Ramagindam Mandal, Peddapalli District, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion and after marriage, petitioner joined the matrimonial house of the respondent. It is averred that after some time, respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally and petitioner was necked out of the matrimonial house by the respondent. Petifioner filed a complaint on 75.04.2022, before Godhavarikhani Police Station, under section 498-4 of IPC, and Section 4 of D.P.Act and the same wasadgistered as Crime No.143 of 2022. Later, petitioner also filed 1 2 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No- 109 of 2024 O.P.No.318 of 2022, before Senior Civil Jude, at Godhavarikhani, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and also D.v.C.No.31 of 2022, before I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Godhavarikhani, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Act,2005. Respondent herein filed H.M.O.p.No.25 of 2024, before Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Adilabad, for dissolution of marriage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has no income and she is fully dependent on her parents for her livelihood. Learned courlel apart from reiterating i the averments has further contended that it is appropriate that H.M.O.P.No.25 of 2024, filed by the respondent is decided along with O.P.No.318 of 2022, fled by the peritioner to avoid conflicting decisions and it is also convenient for the petitioner and as well as respondent, if all the cases are adjudicated by the Court at Godavarikhani.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that distance behieen Mancherial and Godhavarikhani is only 3 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.109 of2024 about 20 kms and no grounds are made out by the Petitioner to transfer ttre H.M O.P.No.25 of 2024.

6. 'Ihis Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the material available on record 7 . The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking trarufer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in'NCV Aishuarya Vs. A.S.Saraoana Karthik Shal held as follows: "9. The cartiinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Cittil Procedure is thnt the ends of jushce should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. ln matimoninl matters, uthcreaer Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts luzte to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouxs antl their behnztioural pattern, their standard of life pnor to the marriage nnd subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parfus in eking out their lioelihood and under whose protectiae u mbrellg- tfuy are seeking their sustenance to life . Gioen the | 2022 SCC Online sc 1199 4 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.l09 of2024 prnailing socio- eanonic pdradigm in the Indian society, gerurally, it is the wife's conoeniznce which must be looked at while.consideing transfer." 9 The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishutarya's case (2"d citeil supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay tn Deoika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deaika fayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patilz, and observed as under:- "ln n country like lndia, important dzcisions such as marriage, diaorce are still taken uith the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to traoel alone for the proceedings to a Court zuhere the fate of her marnage is going to be decided without any family member ruould definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconaenience but also cmohonal and psychological inconuenienct

10. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Piyanka Rahul Patil o. Rahul Raoinilra Patilz followed the principte laid down n N.C.V.Aish7uarya's case (2nd cited supra) and Deuika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deoika fayprakash Buttepatil's case (3rd cited supra), and held as follows:- 2 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 3 (zoz}See online Bom 1982) 5 L'\,4' J Tr.CMP.No 109 of2021 "Tlu untltrlrling pinciple SoT,erning the proceedings unrler Section of ttrc CPC, is that conTtenience of tlrc zoife is to be preferred olt?r tlrc conoenienc-e of tlrc lutsbrord "

77. Thus, thetc are cater-ra of decisions of - tho Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial mathrrs/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another C'ourt, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of tht' husband.

12. Perusal o[ the record discloses that O'P No'378 of 2022, is filed by the petitioner for restihrtion of 'Conjugal Rights and H.M.O.P.No.25 of 2024 is filed by the respondent for clissolution of marriage and it is appropriate that both the cases are decided by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions' It is rt:prresented that the respondent is attending O.P.No.378 of 2022 ar Godhavarikhani Court, and therefore, no preiudice will be caused to the respondent, if H.M.O.P. is transferred to Godhavarikhani Court.

73. Therefore, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid iudements tlia t the convenience of the wife has to be I I 6 LNA, J T..CMP.No.l09 oJ2024 given priority/ preference over the convenience of the husband, this Transfer CMP deserves to be allowed.

74. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.p. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.25 of 2024, pending on the file -of principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Macherial, is withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Godhavarikhani, for disposal in accordance with law.

15. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Macherial, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.25 of 2024 duly indexed, to the Court of the Senior Civil |udge, Godhavarikhani, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, it any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPYII SO/- A.V.S.PRASAD D PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Asst. Sessrons Judge, Mancherial 2. The Senior Civil Judge at Godavarikhani, Mancherial Dist. 3. One CC to SRl. DEVARA SAMH|THA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies kul/PSL 5 LrE1 11'l o C)to,4 k * -2. c) * HIGH COURT DATED:18/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.109 of 2024 ALLOWING THE Tr.C.M.P C"("uX C9 6n, \N